Get real Janet

UPDATE: I am amazed by some of the comments who act as if we are discussing what Mark Latham said. So let me point out that the issue is what Sky News did. We do not have much artillery on our side of the line and if you want to think that it is quite all right for Janet to line up with those who have effectively shut Mark Latham’s commentary down, well fine and dandy. That’s why many of you also don’t get Donald Trump, who is also someone who fights these issues out. Sky News made a commercial decision but all that has been done is remove someone who was actually trying to explain things from what I would have thought is our point of view. No? OK, go watch Q&A instead.
______

An article by the snooty and condescending head prefect at The Oz titled: Mark Latham’s lack of basic decency. Another one of those pseduo-members of the right decides to become an arbiter of proper and improper free speech in defence of our values. The top ten eleven of the top comments with no omissions.

No problem with what you say Janet, just this: A tale of two insulters of children: one calls a child gay – supposedly a good thing – and gets fired for it; one gets a child subjected to the trauma of a two-hour police interrogation for uttering a single word, then humiliates her across the whole country, calling her the face of racism. The latter gets Australian of the Year – surely now an utterly worthless award. Of course, the fired one attacked the left, the exalted one praised it. Total abominable hypocrisy.

Screw your decency Janet. While you ponder on your precious decency the left continues to wage war a vicious war against men, whites, kids, Christianity and western values, all without shame or fear of reprisal. As far as I can see Latham is one of the few grunts in the trenches, doing the dirtiest of jobs , trying to defend our values and freedoms. If we’re going to rely on our decency we might as well raise the white flag now.

The blatant hypocrisy is what galls me Janet. The left, through State funded media, universities and other Government agencies and now our corporations routinely abuse and intimidate anyone and anything that do not agree with them. Not only do they abuse and falsely accuse and label people they savage them, discriminate, intimidate and do everything to destroy them. I’m totally with Latham on this. It’s time somebody with a platform and the spine and intellect stood up to this rabble of thugs.

Disagree Janet. ABC hurls subversive insults every day. Wendy Harmer is excruciating to listen to, obviously leftist and now living on the public purse. Lathams comments about her are antagonistic and inflammatory and possibly insulting, but so was the lefts relentless attacking of Abbott. The young man put himself in the public domaine, thus open to public criticism. You must admit, he was used as a pawn by feminists for IWD. Lathams sacking was a PR stunt by a board acquiescing to political correctness and his comments were re broadcast by those who like to take offence on behalf of others. I’m deeply offended by the ignorance and bias and insults of the ABC, can we sack all them too?

Yet it is OK for the likes of Wendy Harmer to say worse about conservative targets in her so called comedy routine.

May I toss a rotten egg into Janet’s one woman’s Animal Rescue dog’s dinner? It isn’t all beer and skittles in the State of Denmark. The ABC has been getting away with its sneering, devious, relentless campaign in promoting its own agenda for decades. The “Four Corners” stitching up of Pauline Hanson the other night was a typical example of how this blatant propaganda outfit can abuse with our money by sticking to the “rules”. What a breath of fresh air it was to listen to the “Outsiders” team call this mob out for what they really are. Mark Latham doesn’t mince his words and unlike all the other “decent” and gutless politicians – given the power – I’m sure some-one like Latham would soon bring the ABC into line. I have listened to Mark Latham now for many months on SKY and he comes across as the typical honest Aussie you would meet in the street or pub. He is not a 2 week foul mouthed wonder. Most of the time Mark Latham succinctly puts into words want his viewers are thinking. If he has a “sin”, it is from time to time, like a rugby league player he occasionally throws a punch instead of keeping to the rules. Surely like the talented rugby league stars we watch on SKY, he needs to be sin binned – not given a life sentence.

Mark Latham is one of the most incisive and perceptive political commentators in Australia. Unfortunately in his zeal for the cause he sometimes overstepped the mark. There are others, of course, who are shrinking violets, not game to say anything controversial out of fear that they may upset one of the plethora of ‘identities” who are constantly on the prowl looking for some imagined offence. Mark Latham had the courage to ‘call a spade, a spade’, something that is sadly lacking in so many of the politically correct, left wing journalists who comprise the ‘establishment’ of modern journalism. Many such presenters and journalists abound at Sky News, David Speers, Laura Jays, Kristina Keneally and of course PVO, who would bore you to sleep in five minutes flat, if you had the misfortune of being compelled to listen or watch him. It is apparent that they have taken much delight in bringing down one of their more courageous and outspoken colleagues. The sacking of Mark Latham is a very big blow to the standing of Sky News and further entrenches the power of the ruling, left wing elitists there, such as the aforementioned.

I understand your argument and support the need for decency in debate and argument. But gee I admire Latham’s intellect, ability to identify the weaknesses in PC arguments and cut to the quick. How would he react if his wife or son was abused? Well, it would not be by running off to some government bureaucracy. He would stand his ground and give back ten times. A person prepared to back themselves like he does, on stage in the midst of the hateful luvvies, is worthy of support.

Janet I must take issue with your comment today. As a profuse listener to radio and television I must say I have never heard Mark Latham make any remark that was not totally and completely the truth. You mention Wendy Harmer, I took Marks reference to refer to Wendy’s low acts of attacks on others in her public appearances. As for the young man that Mark referred to, Mark asked was he Gay, and unless a person thought that to be Gay was something to be ashamed of, I cannot see a problem. Alan Jones said it all on his Jones&Co Show last night.

I usually find Janet’s articles stimulating and perceptive. This time, however, while criticising the left for denying freedom of speech, she does the very same thing herself in her last paragraph. Surely Janet appreciates that the concept of decency is subjective. I found nothing indecent in Latham’s comments. Her argument is invalid.

So the right fight with one arm behind their back while the lunatic left run rampant. Get real Janet

This entry was posted in Freedom of speech, Media. Bookmark the permalink.

140 Responses to Get real Janet

  1. Sinclair Davidson

    I thought her article was pretty good.

    Latham’s insights are often excellent, but the fact is that he is very self-indulgent when handing out insults. Now Kenneally and Harmer are fair game – but verballing children on national television?

  2. stackja

    JA is MSM. ML is not.

  3. Jackpott

    With regards to Kristina Keneally the NSW ALP should be held accountable for what corruption there was while they were in government. The issue was in relation to Ian McDonald being found guilty of corruption. Nathan Rees gave a good interview on 2GB. Kristina Keneally will not touch this issue at all. I feel she is getting a free pass from the media in relation to this.

    http://www.2gb.com/podcast/ian-macdonald-guilty-of-corruption/

  4. Steve Kates

    Sinclair. This is the way of the left. You say a thousand things and there is one they can make up something to go you for and then they do. And then everyone faints from the exposure. Either we stand up for our own or we don’t. There are too few around like Mark Latham. Personally I wish someone would interview the kid to find out what he thinks of it all.

  5. H B Bear

    No love for Mrs Kroger?

  6. Sinclair Davidson
    #2345843, posted on April 5, 2017 at 8:58 am
    … but verballing children on national television?

    Latham didn’t verbal children.
    He reacted to one young man’s deliberate ambiguity.
    A 17 year old prefect from an academically elite school is not a child.
    The prepared speech Latham referred to was designed to have two meanings. Lets see if I can make it clear:
    The young man said “He decided I should have sex with him
    There was no initial indication that the prefects were quoting women.
    The video was distributed in the public sphere so the speakers would have aware they would attract commentary. Latham provided that commentary.

    The saddest feature of this whole mess is that our future male leaders of business, scientific research, and government are all rabid, hysterical feminists.

  7. Rabz

    I feel she is getting a free pass from the media in relation to this.

    She certainly didn’t get a free pass from the electorate in 2011, so as usual, the meeja are merely looking out for their own.

  8. incoherent rambler

    I thought her article was pretty good.

    Wow.
    Then again, is anyone else unsuprised by the quoted statement?

    I am sure that Benjamin Franklin would not let Latham (who may be one of our last gatekeepers against the PC horde), fall without a battle.

    JA is saying we should get in the queue for our green biscuits. She has ceded to rules of the PC overlords.

  9. sabena

    On Monday there was an opinion piece in the Australian that Latham hadn’t learned that it was the editor’s responsibility for everything aired and his sacking was justified.The problem is just that-there is some editorial control at the Australian so that it is a right of centre newspaper to meet that demand.There is none at the ABC or Fairfax-journalists are allowed to do what they please.There is no doubt in the case of the ABC that its practices are in breach of s6(1)(a) of the ABC Act which is set out below:-
    “6(1) The functions of the Corporation are:

    (a) to provide within Australia innovative and comprehensive broadcasting services of a high standard as part of the Australian broadcasting system consisting of national, commercial and community sectors and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to provide:

    (i) broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community; and

    (ii) broadcasting programs of an educational nature; ”
    The breach is that the selection of news stories does not inform and the broadcasts do not contribute to a sense of national identity-indeed the reverse is true, as national identity is usually denigrated.
    Anyway back to Mark Latham.I made the point in an unpublished comment that Latham has learned his lesson-he intends to become his own editor.

  10. john constantine

    Australia, it is 2017.

    Their weatherfilth in pissy south australia and Nabob andrews in yarragrad are providing National Leadership, as they deindustrialise the economy with dynamite and deconstruct the society with Stalinism in schools.

    While the feckless feds, ummmm, errrrr, ahhhhh, ummmmm,errrrr,ummmmm….zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

    Anybody that says anything immediately has their social licence to have political rights removed.

  11. Cannibal

    – but verballing children on national television?

    Well he couldn’t do it on youtube – his comment would be deleted.

  12. Botswana O'Hooligan

    That needed to be said Mr Kates, thank you. You know, I had a long working life of sixty one years, fifty five of them spent in one particular field of endeavour, and of course saw life in many of its varied ways, so many people, some who no doubt write to this site, are full of talk and no action and when the time comes to stand up and get counted, a great example being the current PM who does a lot of talking, growls and gesticulates, but turns into a paper tiger when the going gets tough. Mark Latham doesn’t and dishes it out, something people in “my Australia” used to do but sadly no longer do. I think he is a loose canon myself but he is entitled to give as good as he gets and should be admired for that alone. And anyhow, Ms Janet leans to the left quite a bit so what would one expect from her?

  13. Faye

    Australians need to hear what Latham has to say in order to balance the bias of most of the other media.

  14. closeapproximation

    Her main point was simply that Latham’s sacking is not a free speech issue, and she criticised those who would conflate matters. Good point.

    On the other hand, this post is suggesting that Latham should not come in for any criticism because we should back a side and not a principle.

    Those who would trade principle for a bit of side deserve neither.

  15. tgs

    Steve, if I want to read the comments on the Oz I can do that easily enough there.

    Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with JA this is a low energy, nothing post that doesn’t add anything of value.

  16. notafan

    The young man put himself in the public domaine, thus open to public criticism.

    Exactly

    We were also told to say nothing about the face of the most feminine of religions because young, because muslim, because black, because female, because migrant.

    It’s always their rules that bend according to who the speakee and the speaker are.

    ‘I thought he was gay’ is like the grossest of slurs only in a that’s terrible Muriel world.

    I remember the left arguing vehemently that a 13 year old girl from a disadvantaged background was as adult for the purposed of widespread public censor, but a 17 boy from a most privileged background , don’t you call him a name !

    Janet is just another member of the sneerocracy telling the public face of the man with a white van to SHUT UP.

  17. notafan

    Yep Janet can criticize Latham and we can criticize Janet.

  18. Nick

    Latho’s sacking has nothing to do with a denial of free speech. As much as I was an avid viewer of him, while he is paid by Sky, they are free to choose what they deem as acceptable behaviour. My own feeling is that belittling the kid isn’t the reason he was sacked, sure its the reason given, though I suspect its more about causing discontent in the Sky presenter camp along with the financial and other trouble that comes with continued litigation, where only the lawyers benefit from it. That said, in his criticism of the student, why not go after the culture at teacher level that obviously put he and his peers up to it?

  19. A Lurker

    but verballing children on national television?

    Is a 17yr old a child?

    In NSW, the age of consent is 16yrs, so I expect that there are 17yr old fathers in our community.
    You can join the army at age 17 and give your life for your country.
    Most young people are either working or attending university at age 17.
    If the young man put himself into the public sphere, then he was open to criticism.

  20. Ray

    An article by the snooty and condescending head prefect at The Oz titled: Mark Latham’s lack of basic decency. Another one of those pseudo-members of the right decides to become an arbiter of proper and improper free speech in defence of our values.

    If that is your argument then you just prove Albrechtsen’s point. If you only want to converse with like minded individuals then, by all means, trade all the insults you want, ridicule those with opposing opinions, cede the moral high ground to your opponents and consign your views to the political fringes. However, if you want to engage with the general community and perhaps carry the day with a little persuasion, a greater degree of self control is required.

    Sure neo-Marxists dominate the debate today and they do so by regularly getting away with slander, innuendo and gross distortions, if not outright lies. Yet they can get away with all of this because they have been allowed to cement their grip on public morality and can employ the full force of the institutions they have hijacked to mobilize the weight of public opinion. As such, you cannot win by playing their game.

    Insults are easy, self indulgent and lazy. They pander to your own base but will rarely carry the day. So if you really want to influence the public debate in a meaningful way, it would be good idea to exchange your invective for clear and cogent arguments. After all, Albrechtsen is not setting herself up as the arbiter of proper free speech in defence of our values, she is simply advising you how better to convince others of your values. It is really up to you whether you take that advice on board.

  21. Sinclair Davidson

    Steve. I am standing up for our own. Janet is not a lefty. Latham, on the other hand, is the former leader of the ALP. He called Janet a skanky ho under parliamentary privilege.

    Quite rightly we booed Goodes off the national stage for his boorish behaviour. Latham has been sacked from more than one job for more or less poor behaviour.

    It is poosible to campaign against political correctness without being a boor. I wish Latham would learn this lesson because when he isn’t being boorish or paying out his ALP friends he is often very insightful.

  22. tgs

    Ray
    #2345960, posted on April 5, 2017 at 10:53 am

    Great post, Ray.

  23. egg_

    JA is saying we should get in the queue for our green biscuits. She has ceded to rules of the PC overlords.

    She certainly kowtows a lot to the PC movement on The Drum nowadays, Kroger’s influence?

  24. Eddystone

    The sacking of Latham was piss weak. They could have had him on with Harmer and Kenneally, ratings would have gone through the roof and both sides could have moved on.

    Maybe the ladies didn’t want the scrutiny?

  25. It is poosible to campaign against political correctness without being a boor.

    Heresy! Burn the infidel!

  26. Roger

    I wish Latham would learn this lesson because when he isn’t being boorish or paying out his ALP friends he is often very insightful.

    I suspect Latham wasn’t sacked for being a boor per se but for commercial reasons. After Harmer, Sky foresaw a litany of defamation suits. Unless his new backers have very deep pockets, Latham will need to curb his enthusiasm somewhat on his new platform. Can he? I hope so…we need his presence and insights in the public domain.

  27. mh

    FFS Sinclair, can’t you just let Steve put up his posts? Your posts are crap. Steve is the only reason I come to this blog.

  28. Cynic of Ayr

    Janet A is, as the article says, “… the snooty and condescending head prefect at The Oz.”
    I hopes she’s offended, insulted, and anguished by the description, which I’ve repeated and endorse.
    Do you know Triggs’ Phone number Janet? Steve will have it for you.
    Like Syvret, that sanctimonious “I know better than anyone” galah.
    His thinking on Triggs’ kitchen table despair. “This, our brave crusaders for the right to be bigots argued, was the thought police gone barking mad… No. It is a sane and reasonable voice of tolerance.”
    Hear it? “Triggs’ – and obviously he as well – believes that making laws against being free, is a sane and reasonable voice of tolerance.
    My God! Do these three morons have any idea what’s said around the kitchen table about them? It’d make their hair curl, and their lawyers slobber at the mouth!

  29. Nick

    Unless his new backers have very deep pockets, Latham will need to curb his enthusiasm somewhat on his new platform. Can he? I hope so…we need his presence and insights in the public domain.

    Both points are true. I worry for Latham though. his detractors will know that a threat of litigation works, Id hate for him to lose his house over an intemperate comment.

  30. NewChum

    Latham’s insights are often excellent, but the fact is that he is very self-indulgent when handing out insults. Now Kenneally and Harmer are fair game – but verballing children on national television?

    /pearls clutched

    The issue is not that sky decided to sack Latham, that is within their right to do so.

    The issue is not that Latham has a habit of being an abusive individual – pope wears a funny hat etc

    The issue is that faux conservatives always shoot right and rush to accept what the left describes as public decency or fair play, while completely and utterly ignoring the continuous foul language, behaviour and attacks by any and all of the left.

    Latham is good value for opinions. He ruffles feathers and gets points across. Let’s not all get hysterical about it. Let’s not all clutch our pearls such that Sky has no move but to sack him. Most Australians really could not care less, and a good many love dropping a bit of boorish behaviour to spice things up, as any visit to a public house on a Friday night will reveal.

    Gently toeing the ever-receding-leftwards line of what constitutes ‘acceptable comment’ defined by socialists will never produce anything but abject defeat and loss of culture. Abbott always said respectable things. Look where that got him.

    Janet A thinks she is conservative but she is really a tame leftist with a few objections to total takeover but the state. I could hardly see her making a good speech about the right for absolute free speech or any other basic freedom like the right to protect property, or the right to restrict immigration to people you want.

  31. Rob

    Given the current extent of the drift away from good journalism now so apparent, Albrechsen is no doubt feeling the relentless and stultifying pressure from the PC peer groups she typically exposes. Her otherwise accurate article is thus tempered by her own “gratuitous” slights at Latham that could have simply been left out e.g. “Latham’s undoing was all his own” and “failed to understand basic decency”.

    Harmer and Kenneally are more than capable of pushing back at Latham and that’s what they should be doing. “Dishing it out but can’t take it”, comes to mind.

  32. .

    Come off it Sinclair the kid was reading some dumb shit about being a receptive woman during sexual intercourse with a man, so he wouldn’t be a raping sexist man.

    Latham was being a kindly uncle telling him to STFU.

  33. .

    mh
    #2346004, posted on April 5, 2017 at 11:37 am
    FFS Sinclair, can’t you just let Steve put up his posts? Your posts are crap. Steve is the only reason I come to this blog.

    Quite the opposite. I’d pay Sinc to shut it down if Looney Kates was the only poster.

  34. mh

    Janet A thinks she is conservative but she is really a tame leftist with a few objections to total takeover but the state. I could hardly see her making a good speech about the right for absolute free speech or any other basic freedom like the right to protect property, or the right to restrict immigration to people you want.

    Janet is a sunshine conservative, just like many others who made a safe career for themselves by not being one of the ‘Howard Haters’. When the sun goes behind a cloud we see them for the lump of blancmange that they are.

  35. A Lurker

    The issue is that faux conservatives always shoot right and rush to accept what the left describes as public decency or fair play, while completely and utterly ignoring the continuous foul language, behaviour and attacks by any and all of the left.

    Yes

  36. Philippa Martyr

    Janet is a sunshine conservative, just like many others who made a safe career for themselves by not being one of the ‘Howard Haters’. When the sun goes behind a cloud we see them for the lump of blancmange that they are.

    Beautifully put.

  37. What did Latham actually say that made everyone clutch their pearls?

  38. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    Latham could have been readily called to an apology to the young boy and I am sure having children of his own he would have readily offered one. The key failing is that he was not offered the chance to respond to any public concerns about his statements. Shades of the HRC here. Nothing else he said deserves any apology; the Outsiders is basically satirical, in the Private Eye style, a point missed by so many people taking offense, and the main attack in that one particular comment essentially referred back to the irresponsible and foolish adults who not only permitted but encouraged these young people into such risible behaviour. The offense-taking females, Harmer and Keneally, deserve no quarter; they give as much as they got there, and more.

    I have not heard any apology from Mark Goodes, Australian of the Year, to the young (just turned fourteen) girl from a disadvantaged background to whom he caused great distress and who also suffered the illegal publication of her photograph in the National press. It is doubtful indeed if this young girl had any idea of how her comment may have been perceived as a ‘racial’ insult. She was enjoying the football with her Nana. I repeat. No. Apology. At. All.

    As I see it, and I am by no means the only ‘reasonable’ person (and parent) to see it this way, Janet Albrechtsen is just engaging in payback here for Latham’s comments under Parliamentary privilege, made in another time, and protecting her status at elite dinner parties and engaging in the managereal machinations of various owners of publications. Rita Panahi, from the other side of the tracks, is far more honest.

  39. jupes

    … but verballing children on national television?

    Obviously you didn’t watch the show Sinc. Those children were not verballed at all. They were fair game.

    The boy was a willing participant in a political video released on the internet. His monologue was about having sex with boys. Latham was just pointing out the bleeding obvious.

    Latham’s comment that he thought the boy was gay was a fair and valid comment and an appropriate response to a political video. Unless of course it is now the case that children can make any political point they like on the internet and no adult is allowed to comment.

    The girl was also fair game in that she had been used as the catalyst by her father as the reason he was implementing quotas at the Reserve Bank. In other words he was using her as the excuse for how he was wasting taxpayer’s money.

    Latham did not verbal her. He pointed out that if she really wanted to help women there are plenty of examples of women who are far worse off than those who have missed out on an executive position on the government teat.

    Also note that Latham wasn’t sacked for ‘verballing’ those two. Indeed the comment about the boy happened three weeks ago. No, Latham was sacked because he upset Kristina Keneally (and possibly PVO).

    Sky should have sacked that pair instead.

  40. mh

    Most Australians really could not care less, and a good many love dropping a bit of boorish behaviour to spice things up, as any visit to a public house on a Friday night will reveal.

    Reminds me of the sunshine conservatives that said that Trump couldn’t win following the release of tapes of him speaking eleven years prior. Trump was finished, they told us.

  41. notafan

    17 year old HSC students aren’t ‘young boys’ .

  42. C.L.

    Latham’s take-down of posh ‘conservative’ Albrechtsen is brilliant and indisputable.
    Latham wins.
    No leftist has explained, incidentally, why calling a young man “gay” is an insult.

  43. Senior sources at Sky News were horrified at revelations in The Daily Telegraph that Latham had questioned a school student’s sexuality.

    Why were they horrified? This whole episode is instructive in a number of ways.

  44. Des Deskperson

    “Gently toeing the ever-receding-leftwards line of what constitutes ‘acceptable comment’ defined by socialists will never produce anything but abject defeat and loss of culture”

    Well, yes, but to make headway in such an environment, you have to be tactically astute and disciplined.

    Latham wasn’t; his smart-arse comments didn’t add anything to the debate, but he handed his enemies a gift-wrapped reason to shut him down, to use an old saying, he shat in his own nest.

    To quote again from New Chum, above, the net result has been ‘an abject defeat and a loss of culture’.

    .

  45. Cassie of Sydney

    I think that Lizzie has articulated the issues around Latham, Sky and the utter hypocrisy of the venal left perfectly. I watched every episode of Outsiders and I found it to be a refreshing weekly satire on the week’s news, from a deplorable perspective. So if Sky, foolishly, are dancing to the music of the singularly untalented screeching yank Keneally, the hideous Harmer and the bovine buffoon PVO, well their ratings will continue to fall.

  46. notafan

    Maybe Latham isn’t talking to the middle classes.

    I see a lot more frank commentary on a few closed facebook groups, some prefer to use pictures.

    And Her Triggness though Leake was a racist.

    No idea how ordinary Australians think or speak.

  47. Empire GTHO Phase III

    It is po[s]sible to campaign against political correctness without being a boor. I wish Latham would learn this lesson because when he isn’t being boorish or paying out his ALP friends he is often very insightful.

    Possible? Yes.

    I appreciate many people are still wedded to polite society for sound practical and perhaps moral reasons, but the left will never be defeated if everyone on the right swears off boorishness.

  48. It is po[s]sible to campaign against political correctness without being a boor.

    No, it isn’t.

  49. Infidel Tiger

    No leftist has explained, incidentally, why calling a young man “gay” is an insult.

    I noted that during Karl Stefanovic’s best man speech to his weird and puny little brother he noted that his mum was “worried Pete was gay”. Now why would she worry about such a wondrous and glorious thing?

    p.s Why in hell was crazy haired fright Albrechtsen worried about being referred to as an Asian warlord’s wife?

  50. Irreversible

    Kates has the mentaility of a schoolyard gangster. “Stand up for our own”, indeed! Latham is now and always has been a self-promoting windbag. He is all about ML and nothing and no one else (just like Trump). The fact that he’s drifted in a conservative direction is simply the result of having exhausted his options on the left.

  51. belabartok

    I can’t believe on the Cat I am reading such pretentious twaddle and flummery that supports JA and chides Latham for being ‘boorish’. Really? You guys are supposed to defend free speech and liberty and all that, not pander to the Marxists! Stiffen the sinews! Summon up the blood! Weaklings!

    and as for you Mr. Davidson…

    #23459

    75, posted on April 5, 2017 at 11:08 am

    Steve. I am standing up for our own. Janet is not a lefty. Latham, on the other hand, is the former leader of the ALP. He called Janet a skanky ho under parliamentary privilege.

    Quite rightly we booed Goodes off the national stage for his boorish behaviour. Latham has been sacked from more than one job for more or less poor behaviour.
    .

    1 – Latham was for Labor, but by God he gave as good as he got – and didn’t flinch from not attacking those who enjoy the freedom of attacking at every opportunity (ABC/Fauxfacts)
    2 – Goodes was *not* booed off the national stage. He has support from every MSM chatterer an was rewarded for his racism with a plum ‘Official Role’ for supposedly showing how racist all of Australia was (except him)
    3 – Latham has been sacked for ‘speaking the truth to power’ (gotta love that!) – all media HAVE to get rid of him as he holds a mirror up to their perfidy… and this site of all should applaud that.
    4 – The schoolkid deserved being targetted; for being a pompous, pampered, pretentious twit. He will no doubt be offered many important roles as his SJW status has peaked.

    Sometimes the people on this site cause me to wonder why they’re not all eating Soylent Green and shmoozing with Trigglypuff.
    Shame on you all.

  52. Nick

    I noted that during Karl Stefanovic’s best man speech to his weird and puny little brother he noted that his mum was “worried Pete was gay”. Now why would she worry about such a wondrous and glorious thing?

    More to the point, you can bet there would have been howls to kill and destroy had, say, a Coach of a major football team or a conservative figure had said that.

  53. Nick

    3 – Latham has been sacked for ‘speaking the truth to power’ (gotta love that!) – all media HAVE to get rid of him as he holds a mirror up to their perfidy… and this site of all should applaud that.

    What bullshit. Truth has nothing to do with it, nor does free speech. He was an employee, as such, he would be expected to maintain particular standards. The same as any other firm.

  54. braddles

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but if Sky News was liable to be sued for Latham’s comments, then sacking him after the event is no protection. The decision to sack him could not have been a commercial one, unless Keneally or one of the others threatened to sue unless he was sacked.

  55. jupes

    I noted that during Karl Stefanovic’s best man speech to his weird and puny little brother he noted that his mum was “worried Pete was gay”.

    Triggs was right.

    This is an insight as to what actually happens “around the kitchen table”.

    This homophobia must be stopped at once.

  56. Senile Old Guy

    The problem is just that-there is some editorial control at the Australian so that it is a right of centre newspaper to meet that demand.There is none at the ABC or Fairfax-journalists are allowed to do what they please.

    There is control at the ABC: conservative views are not expressed only criticised and mocked, from the left.

    On the other hand, this post is suggesting that Latham should not come in for any criticism because we should back a side and not a principle.

    Nope, he can be criticised; he can even be fired. But anyone who has watched the Oz MSM for any time will note that lefties get away with far worse.

    As I see it, and I am by no means the only ‘reasonable’ person (and parent) to see it this way, Janet Albrechtsen is just engaging in payback here for Latham’s comments under Parliamentary privilege, made in another time, and protecting her status at elite dinner parties and engaging in the managereal machinations of various owners of publications.

    Nicely said.

  57. mizaris

    belabartok

    #2346106, posted on April 5, 2017 at 12:46 pm

    What he said!!!

  58. Nick

    unless Keneally or one of the others threatened to sue unless he was sacked.

    Not even that. They could create internal pressure, don’t forget that theres a few colleagues with a potential axe to grind, that they would walk unless he was punished.

  59. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    17 year old HSC students aren’t ‘young boys’ .

    No, not chronologically young boys, but these young men are still vulnerable in their later teens and ‘subject to influence’ in what are their developing years. The real issue raised here is how much pressure was brought to bear upon these lads to be videoed in such a farcical manner, leaving them open to ridicule across the school spectrum and beyond it by other students, as well as ridiculed by adults who don’t realise how brainwashed the young people have been. At least Latham was well aware of, and drew attention to, the real perpetrators in this outrageous and inept display; teachers and parents (presumably permission was requested for this role reversal act). The effect of such ridicule could be long-lasting, Latham’s probably being on the milder end of that spectrum.

  60. Tintarella di Luna

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but if Sky News was liable to be sued for Latham’s comments, then sacking him after the event is no protection. The decision to sack him could not have been a commercial one, unless Keneally or one of the others threatened to sue unless he was sacked.

    The sunbather has expertise in this area and says neither Ms Harmer nor Ms Keneally would have had a case to answer. IMHO Ms Keneally would never have sued, do you think for one micro-second Ms Keneally would have opened up the can of worms that was the Labor party with Eddie Obeid as king-pin? and have the entrails of that beast spread contagion all over the body politic — I don’t think so —

    As for Wendy Harmer – defamation actions are an expensive business – Ms Harmer would have had to weigh up the wisdom of suing and maybe losing and possibly losing her house – to avenge an insult?

  61. Ray

    Steve, re your update, you are correct to point out that we do not have a lot of artillery on our side. That is why it is important to make sure that we make every shot count. That is why what Mark Latham said is so important and why it is important what you and everyone on our side of politics says, for at the moment you are only firing blanks.

    Perhaps this is the reason that leftist rhetoric dominates our major institutions, because you allow them to win through your self indulgence. It may sound good to take on the regressive left in a slanging match and it may provide you with a perverse sense of victory when you think you score a point here or point there. However, you will lose the war.

    This is a battle for the hearts and minds of middle Australia and the average person will not respond to you if you are abusive and insulting. So if you are seriously in the battle for ideas, then change your game, else feel free to continue as political fringe dweller.

  62. Tintarella di Luna

    oops not a case to answer – a case to put

  63. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    He was an employee, as such, he would be expected to maintain particular standards. The same as any other firm.

    Chaser ‘boys’ still performing on ABC in spite of having to settle a case for depicting a right wing journalist having sexual intercourse with a dog!

    The chance for Latham to offer an apology, and keeping Outsiders going, allowing it to be right at the edge, as good satire always has to be, would be a fine commercial decision now for Sky to make. Restoration of faith regarding the second most popular commentary show on Sky might be something worth considering.

  64. mh

    This is a battle for the hearts and minds of middle Australia and the average person will not respond to you if you are abusive and insulting.

    Did you miss the Trump election, Ray? Or are Australians far more polite than Americans?

  65. notafan

    The real issue?

    I’m sure that the young men and their luvvie families lapped up the opportunity to virtue signal their inner feminist.

    And I am also sure that they think they are heroes.

    These people simply don’t mix outside their bubbles while sniggering behind their hands at ordinary Australians.

    He’s a few months away from voting, already old enough to join the army.

    So please stop pretending that 17 year olds are all precious petals, incapable of making adult decisions. They have a few months more of limited protection from the results of their own follies but that is all.

    As for sexuality, Minus 18 is all about the rights of adolescent trans and whatevers.

    The left want it both ways, sexualized teens with all the rights of adults and none of the responsibilities.

    As for ridicule, other than Latham’s passing comment I’d like to hear about one other public figure having a go at this upper middle gentleman, whose face no-one will recognise unless he continues to stick it in the public view.

    My just turned 18 nephew would have told anyone asking him to do that crap where to go.

  66. notafan

    The real issue?

    I’m sure that the young men and their luvvie families lapped up the opportunity to virtue signal their inner feminist.

    And I am also sure that they think they are heroes.

    These people simply don’t mix outside their bubbles while snortling behind their hands at ordinary Australians.

    He’s a few months away from voting, already old enough to join the army.

    So please stop pretending that 17 year olds are all precious petals, incapable of making adult decisions. They have a few months more of limited protection from the results of their own follies but that is all.

    As for sexuality, Minus 18 is all about the rights of adolescent trans and whatevers.

    The left want it both ways, sexualized teens with all the rights of adults and none of the responsibilities.

    As for ridicule, other than Latham’s passing comment I’d like to hear about one other public figure having a go at this upper middle gentleman, whose face no-one will recognise unless he continues to stick it in the public view.

    My just turned 18 nephew would have told anyone asking him to do that crap where to go.

  67. A Lurker

    A timely reminder…

    Rules for Radicals – By Saul Alinsky

    4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

  68. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    This is a battle for the hearts and minds of middle Australia

    Who tuned in in large numbers to “Outsiders”. Middle Australia does not live in Sydney’s Balmain or Vaucluse or their other capital city equivalents.

  69. NewChum

    Well, yes, but to make headway in such an environment, you have to be tactically astute and disciplined.

    Wrong. Accepting the lefts frame is just a way of expressing your defeat on their terms.

    Quensberry rules have been tried.

    Winning is what is needed. Yes, sometimes vulgar. It’s not a high school debating competition here.

    Look at Andrew Bolt. Trying to be polite and attend the opera for over a decade and still gets dragged through the court on thought crimes. Meanwhile Goodes gets an innocent teenager harassed by the police and nothing to see.

    The left should mercilessly mocked and ridiculed whether and whenever the rise their idiotic false narrative. It’s easy, all you need is the truth. Men have penises and women have a vagina. Not all cultures are equal. I could go on. A culture that puts the rights of gay people above families cannot survive.
    Any number of truths, said plainly, would get Latham booted from Sky because of all the Janet A types hitting the fainting couches. Its ‘current year’ don’t you know?

  70. Crossie

    The issue is that faux conservatives always shoot right and rush to accept what the left describes as public decency or fair play, while completely and utterly ignoring the continuous foul language, behaviour and attacks by any and all of the left.

    Marieke Hardy, Clem Ford and Van Badham use the foulest of language when speaking or writing about conservatives yet they are still celebrated by the “polite” society. What Mark said is mild compared to what these harridans spew.

  71. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    I think your points and mine about ‘young’ men can both apply, Notafan. Depends on the young person, and of course their families. If their families aren’t concerned for them being subject to such nonsensical teachings and role plays, then the young men deserve our pity. They are receiving a very bad education that their families are supporting. They will find the real world far and its social relationships far more of a challenge than young men not subject to this specious form of indoctrination.

  72. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    Please remove one ‘far’ from the above; my computer plays trick with any insert.

  73. notafan

    Clem Ford

    on twitter is a revelation in man hate

  74. Des Deskperson

    “Well, yes, but to make headway in such an environment, you have to be tactically astute and disciplined.

    Wrong. Accepting the lefts frame is just a way of expressing your defeat on their terms.”

    Err, New Chum, Latham HAS been defeated, if he hadn’t been so ill-disciplindly ‘clever’, he’d still be on Outsiders bashing the lefties about, but he’s stupidly handed them a large net win.

  75. Sinclair Davidson

    Steve is the only reason I come to this blog.

    Heh. Don’t let me keep you.

  76. Jannie

    Latham should be appointed Chairman of the ABC. He is better qualified than most people.

  77. NewChum

    Err, New Chum, Latham HAS been defeated, if he hadn’t been so ill-disciplindly ‘clever’, he’d still be on Outsiders bashing the lefties about, but he’s stupidly handed them a large net win.

    Getting booted from Sky is a minor flesh wound, and will become a battle scar. Hardly anyone watches it anyway. He can build a much bigger audience elsewhere. He was already booted from several other publications as I recall, and he keeps coming back because people are itching for someone to fight and the audience is there.

    Cable tv is the deadest of dead ends right now.

  78. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    This is a battle for the hearts and minds of middle Australia and the average person will not respond to you if you are abusive and insulting.

    You are right. Unless, that is, instead of being seen as ‘abusive and insulting’ as the left depict all satire from the right, you are being satirical in a show that is marketed as and proclaims itself to be – a SATIRICAL SHOW about the week’s politics. Good satire lets idiocy speak for itself when pointed out. The “Outsiders’ excelled at that. The right wing journalist ‘satirised’ by the Chaser ‘Boys’ was never a person involved in the behavior they depicted nor did it make any sense as satire: so the piece was outright abusive of its target.

    The young lad was a clear target for a risible response: although his teachers and parents should have been ones more critiqued. However, as a nearly adult, calling ‘child abuse’ is rather silly in this case.

  79. Des Deskperson

    “Getting booted from Sky is a minor flesh wound, and will become a battle scar. Hardly anyone watches it anyway. He can build a much bigger audience elsewhere.”

    Well, we’ll see, won’t we. My own view of Latham is that he is an unstable and increasingly bitter and crabby narcissist who will do the conservative cause much harm whatever he does.

  80. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    The ‘Goodes’ case was an absolute turning point for me. Here was a genuine child, from a disadvantaged background enjoying a treat at the sports ground, genuinely confused over what she had said, who was taken by police into the night for two or more hours away from an adult advocate or parent, subjected to media attention and vilification, some of which was illegal, and abused for ‘racism’ by a wealthy grown man who should have known better. There was never any apology to that child or her family let alone any compensation for hurt. At the very least, Goodes should have called her, offered her some free seasons tickets, and made light of the issue. Nope. Not a whisper.

    Disgusting leftism at work there and we should give no truck to complaints about something much milder and far more justified and explicable in ‘Outsiders’. A minor apology to the lad might be in order from Mark Latham, nothing more.

    Mark could offer to invite him round for a cooking demonstration and a home-cooked meal. 🙂

  81. Tracey

    JA hasn’t been the same since Turnbull wielded the knife, at least in terms of her writing in The Australian. Maybe she was always a bit left-leaning but now feels freer to expose those beliefs.

    Have either Ross Cameron or Rowan Dean made any public comment about Latham’s sacking? If they have I’ve missed seeing it.

  82. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    Mark Latham has lost his televisual career over this; I doubt he can recover to where he was before and will be forced to return to print media for a living. Sad, and completely unnecessary. Reflects terribly upon the management of Sky.

  83. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    I hope though that I am wrong and that we will see him on Sky again, on ‘Outsiders’.
    Wouldn’t that be great? Or that some other media of significance (with guts) takes him on board.

  84. Rules of engagement eh? Basic common decency eh?
    No wonder a bunch of foat guckers and lesbian dance theory graduates are kicking our collective arses in the culture wars.
    They get to call us fascists and racists etc etc with abandon, but we question a poofy looking beta male if (s)he is gay and are slammed by both sides.

    Sometimes I think some of you like bending over and taking it. That’s OK because your children and grand-children will certainly be taking it at the rate we’re going. You might as well show them the right way to take it.

  85. TheDAwg

    Thank goodness for contributors other than you Sinclair! If it wasn’t for them and the people who post here you would be running just another know-nothing, have done nothing, will do nothing site under a “conservative” guise to make yourself feel important.

    You and Bolt are the same. Faux conservatives and gutless to boot!

  86. Sinclair Davidson

    Faux conservatives and gutless to boot!

    God I hope so. Not actually being a conservative and all.

  87. Gilas

    Once again, the comments above amply show what a bunch of losers the “right” are.

    Otherwise intelligent bloggers arguing about whether ML might have hurt someone-or-other’s feelings, doing something completely normal. FFS!!

    Here we are, arguing about the number of camels on a pin, while the left destroys us on a daily basis.

    Actions vs words… you all know who wins.

  88. Des Deskperson

    BTW, I guess all Cats here who defended Latham’s right to be crudely and sub-cerebrally insulting were happy with this:

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/adf-members-are-meatheads-and-primeval-mark-latham/news-story/4fea256d82ef48f49f710593bcbfcb83?sv=e6ba9cc4169e3d2dd8fecf6afb59d523

    Has he ever apologised?

  89. Infidel Tiger

    Latho was dead wrong about the ADF. As we now know they are mostly lezzos, trannies and other assorted freaks.

  90. test pattern

    ‘They get to call us fascists and racists’

    The left doesn’t want to give up the stigmatising potential of ‘racist’ for the more accurate ‘Otherer,’ which doesn’t have the resonance of ‘racist.’ Were it to be explained that Othering is a waypoint on the road to genocide it could be equally stigmatising. The pathetic attempt at deflection and denial by those who claim that Fascism was not a far right movement is an example of how easily the right loses the culture wars through dishonesty.

  91. Rev. Archibald

    So about the only real issue conservatives and libertarians of today could agree was free speech.
    Alas, on this too you libertarians prove to be a bunch of complete numpy fuckwits.

  92. cohenite

    The myth is if you contradict some arcane principles and notions of manners you lose righteousness in opposing creeps who have no principles, despite pretending and believing they embody such principles.

    Ideas like noble cause corruption are bandied about to explain the amorality of the left/alarmists. In fact the left is driven by the even simpler idea of ego and hatred of those outside the tribe; the left’s only goal is to win as ugly sally McManus said. Latham is from the left; he knows to beat the beasts of the left, and islam, you can’t muzzle yourself with pretensions of decorum because they get fucking ignored by the left as McManus said; you can reason until your arse shrinks, the left doesn’t care. As the saying goes: if the left bring a clenched fist, bring a knife; if they bring a knife, bring a gun; if they bring a gun, bring a bigger one.

  93. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    In that linked article re the ‘meathead’ reference (a popular pub term, btw, and never taken seriously), this is the serious point that Latham was making:

    “Labor talks a lot about working families but most of its Mps are working hard for the high life,” Mr Latham wrote.
    “Their favoured form of infrastructure is the gravy train.”

    He is an old-style Labor man, and speaks truth to power, always using the vernacular.
    He was part of the excellent ‘balance’ on “Outsiders”.

  94. notafan

    Please watch our first Mark Latham’s Outsiders live streaming program on Wednesday 8-9pm with me, Miranda Devine and Bettina Arndt – wonderful commentators on the unfortunate rise of anti-white racism, Left-feminist DV myths and the absurdity of couch-fainting feminists in Australia. Should be a great show. Free TV with freedom of speech – you don’t see that too often these days!!

  95. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    I’d rather have a ‘meathead’ than various assorted freaks (as mentioned above) defending me in a crisis. The term doesn’t mean they can’t think, it means they are first and foremost brawn and thus good enforcers.

    See the vid of three Swedish policewomen unable to apprehend a rampaging criminal even after a bystanding male had tackled him to the ground for them to get the gist of my feelings.

  96. test pattern

    ‘He is an old-style Labor man’

    Latham has never worked in his whole miserable bludging life. Old Labor men worked.

  97. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    Link please for that Latham program? If it’s Facebook forget it for me. I don’t go there.

  98. Mark A

    There is nothing wrong with Facebook if used properly.
    I’m on it and connected to family members only. My Facebook page is private, everything we post is private for recipients only.

    Looking at Facebook pages won’t corrupt you.

    Twitter on the other hand is a different medium altogether.

  99. Des Deskperson

    ” The term doesn’t mean they can’t think, it means they are first and foremost brawn and thus good enforcers.”

    Lizzie, Latham clearly meant it to mean that they can’t think. He went on to describe ADF members as having “limited intelligence and primeval interests in life”.

    Latham is a loose cannon.

  100. Senile Old Guy

    3 – Latham has been sacked for ‘speaking the truth to power’ (gotta love that!) – all media HAVE to get rid of him as he holds a mirror up to their perfidy… and this site of all should applaud that.

    What bullshit. Truth has nothing to do with it, nor does free speech. He was an employee, as such, he would be expected to maintain particular standards. The same as any other firm.

    But he was not working for ‘any other firm’ as Lizzie has pointed out: he was on a satirical show, getting stuffed into lefties and others. He was also hired, I assume, because of his style of commentary: he was a known quantity. Also, others get away with much worse.

    But it is Sky’s decision to make. Did they make a good decision? Time will tell.

  101. Roger

    Lizzie, Latham clearly meant it to mean that they can’t think. He went on to describe ADF members as having “limited intelligence and primeval interests in life”.

    Des, if it’s any consolation, I don’t think anyone in the army is going to lose any sleep over Latham’s comments.

  102. belabartok

    I’m a bit hurt:

    Nick #2346115, posted on April 5, 2017 at 12:52 pm
    …What bullshit. Truth has nothing to do with it, nor does free speech. He was an employee, as such, he would be expected to maintain particular standards. The same as any other firm.

    This just confirms what I said about panty-waisted milque-toasts!
    Maintain standards? What standards? That he dissemble? Not follow the PC (i.e. Marxist dialectical praxis) of forbidding speech that isn’t sanctioned? That he actively look the other way and pretend to see something other than there is?
    The point I was making has been made – Latham didn’t ‘maintain Standards’ – when those standards are written by the MarxFilth and apply only to those outside the tent.
    For shame x 2. Soylent Green. Good name for a political party.

  103. DrBeauGan

    Sometimes the people on this site cause me to wonder why they’re not all eating Soylent Green and shmoozing with Trigglypuff.
    Shame on you all.

    Not all. Too many though.

    The idea that we all need to be properly lady-like in public statements is dead wrong. Freedom of speech means something quite different from that. Clutch your damned pearls somewhere else.

  104. Rabz

    The ‘Goodes’ case was an absolute turning point for me.

    Yep, I stopped following the ALPFL the second the arrogant prick pointed out the girl to cops, in front of a massive crowd at the ground and before a significant televisual audience.

    Unless he was carpeted and made to grovel, which of course he wasn’t, there no chance of me ever following the ALPFL again. To make matters worse, he played for the team I’d supported up until that point.

    It was a significant incident in recent Australian life, that’s for sure. That an act of such appalling cowardice could be celebrated rather than denounced made me realise how far we’d fallen.

    We continue to fall, as Latham has recently discovered (again).

  105. Rabz

    Des, if it’s any consolation, I don’t think anyone in the army is going to lose any sleep over Latham’s comments.

    Not when they’re busy fretting about their upcoming gender reassignments and what lippy to wear at morning parade.

  106. EvilElvis

    The old chestnut that we of the right have standards and decency…

    Fuck that, I’m with Steve on this. We have no public faces ready to get right down in the shit and fight these bastards at their own game. It’s
    why we are losing.

  107. Tal

    What are dear Homer’s thoughts on this? Has he weighted in on the subject?

  108. john

    Latham called her a “skanky ho” which turns out to be not a very nice term.

    I like Latham also but I don’t blame Janet for not being able to forgive. Just let Janet be Janet on this one and let’s go on cheering Latham.

  109. john

    PS I have an enormous following for Janet also. They will probably never have much time for each other which is a shame but that doesn’t stop the rest of us from admiring both of them.

  110. Yohan

    Latham, despite his problems, needs to be supported. He is the only media/political figure in Australia that has taken a public stand against the rising tide of PC and cultural marxism.

    The only other person who comes close is Maurice Newman, but he just writes articles.

    The media establishment now thinks it’s mission accomplished, and will banish Latham from TV forever. He should respond by joining ONP. It will be fucking hilarious.

  111. Ruprect

    The likes of Albrechtsen and Davidson serve the interests of the ruling left-elite by proclaiming ‘out of order’ those genuine warriors, the Abbotts and Lathams, among us who offer spirited and effective resistance to the left’s sick agenda.
    The left is waging total war against us, a war for our nation and our civilisational inheratence, and these types constantly undermine our effort by pretending it’s a struggle to be conducted like a high school debate.
    Check out Frank Farudi’s recent article on Spiked and recognise that Albrechtsen and Davidson identify with the ruling elite and, like the ruling elite, find our resistance, the resistance of the demos, to be an unacceptable repudiation of their imagined moral authority.

  112. NewChum

    You don’t have to be a Latham supporter to take Latham side here. Nobody is suggesting Latham is anything but an ex Labor man.

    But he speaks frankly and gets the vacuous heads a-pearl-clutchin’ and isn’t afraid to stand up against the crybullies of the left.

    The principle that people can say controversial things on TV or radio is at stake here.

    Those that tsk like old widows think they can dance safely inside the boundary set by the socialists – but they are drawing that boundary in year by year, person by person.

    Keating got up in parliament a bit over 25 years ago and said two men and a cocker spaniel don’t make a family. It’s obviously true but anyone saying that now will get the Latham treatment.

    The purpose is to eliminate truth to a relative construct and rekove from the language all the word you bends to express reality. Each time someone comes up with ‘acceptable behaviour’ you’re alrqdy in their frame.

  113. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    Roger
    #2346308, posted on April 5, 2017 at 5:15 pm
    Lizzie, Latham clearly meant it to mean that they can’t think. He went on to describe ADF members as having “limited intelligence and primeval interests in life”.
    Des, if it’s any consolation, I don’t think anyone in the army is going to lose any sleep over Latham’s comments.

    I don’t know the context it is true, but to me it was just pub mode; a boofhead talking about boofheads. Nothing much in it. And as Roger says, the army didn’t go into overdrive about it, although Juliar did.
    They’ve heard worse. Today’s lady army, of course, would require counselling and compensation and Latham’s head as a trophy. In a few short years we have come a long, long way from Australian larrikinism.

    Latham fighting back bravely on his Facebook show. I watched it through a friend’s account as I don’t want to be on Facebook. Latham may never have been a bricklayer (I don’t know what sort of holiday jobs he may have had though as a youth out West though) but his heart is with the genuine ‘working class’. That much was even clearer last night. An old Labor man through and through, as I said up above to some derision, and one sick of the rot. To be admired and supported for his vernacular and courage.

  114. Rabz

    Check out Frank Furedi’s recent article on Spiked

    Furedi’s an old style Brendan O’Neill type leftie who writes a lot of sense on a wide range of topics. Both of them are appalled at what sanctimonious, censorious, violent, stupid, hypocritical whingers the modern left have become.

  115. cohenite
    #2346270, posted on April 5, 2017 at 4:33 pm

    Absolutely correct. The Gramscian Alinskyist left are now all pervasive and and control the majority of opinion making outlets that it can no longer be fought on Queensbury rules and the left must routed using all the weapons at our disposal.
    Until the conservatives understand that it is not longer hearts and minds but full on proper Attila heads on spikes shit that is needed. Tolerance and politeness only go so far.

  116. Anne

    What an incredible thread. So much sound and fury.

    Meanwhile, the Globalist slavers rolling on Armageddon.

  117. Cassie of Sydney

    Latham is a leftie, he is not a luvvie (this is not my line, I read this in a post here a few years ago). There is a huge difference. Latham lives in western Sydney and he speaks (and more importantly, cares) for those masses of people who do not inhabit the putrid green cocoon of inner city suburbs in the major capital cities. I live in one of those putrid green cocoons called Paddington and I can tell you here and now that suburbs such as mine are infested with wealthy green scum hypocrites who happily state that they do not give a rat’s arse about the people out in the mortgage belt or suburbs such as Cambelltown and Blacktown etc. I once had a conversation with a neighbour who works at the ABC and votes green and yet the racism and elitism that came out of her mouth appalled me. She also assured me that anti-Semitism only came about when the state of Israel was established back in 1948! Anyway, I digress, back to Mark Latham. Latham understands the war being conducted against heterosexual white men and boys who are being vilified daily. He understands and cares about the blue collar worker living in the burbs. He is 100% correct about the Marxist gender crap being propagated daily. Everything he said in Outsiders is spot on. The modern ALP, under BS, is a disgrace of identity and race politics. Latham is old Labor, you may not agree with him on a lot of things however he is someone who lives amongst the battlers and understands them

  118. mh

    Keating got up in parliament a bit over 25 years ago and said two men and a cocker spaniel don’t make a family.

    Last night Steve Price and Rita Panahi were discussing the decline of Australia that has resulted from appalling leadership. But they couldn’t come up with anyone with the ability to arrest the downward slide. Paul Keating was the only person I could think of with enough attitude.

  119. sure neo-Marxists dominate the debate today and they do so by regularly getting away with slander, innuendo and gross distortions, if not outright lies. Yet they can get away with all of this because they have been allowed to cement their grip on public morality and can employ the full force of the institutions they have hijacked to mobilize the weight of public opinion. As such, you cannot win by playing their game.

    Ray, we are in a battle for our culture against contemporary neo-Marxists. Steve and others believe that rational discourse is often a losing tactic against them. It certainly hasn’t succeeded in the post-war period. Quite the contrary – we are losing badly. Sometimes playing the enemy at their own game works against bullies – including intellectual ones. It should not be a permanent strategy – for it demeans much of our values. But as shock tactics? Hell yes.

  120. Yohan

    Furedi’s an old style Brendan O’Neill type leftie who writes a lot of sense on a wide range of topics. Both of them are appalled at what sanctimonious, censorious, violent, stupid, hypocritical whingers the modern left have become.

    Yes yes. Furedi and O’Neill are old school Marxists who hate modern PC leftism. As a result the progressive left now sees them as conservative reactionaries. They are definitely worth reading and listening to.

    For those interested look up Frank Furedi talks on youtube.

  121. Regards the debate about being polite versus being rude, ask yourself this question…
    “Prefer Trump or Jeb?”
    Being polite in the current culture wars means a certain defeat.
    What we need to understand is that people may not wish to be impolite themselves, but they sure as hell want somebody else to ‘say what they wanted to say’.

  122. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    Well said Cassie.

  123. Thanks Steve,

    Fascinating discussion. Let’s go to the background: on the Outsiders panel show on Sunday 12 March we ran through a series of zany things said on International Women’s Day the previous Wednesday. Five or six items. One of them was the Sydney Boys school prefect video, which had attracted significant media attention. The young men spoke the words of women in trying to help the feminist cause. The first speaker talked about having sex with a man. The video was designed to initially mislead, as only later did it become clear the speakers were quoting women.
    I have spoken to scores of people who have said, upon first viewing of the video they thought the first speaker was speaking as a young gay man. That was my impression too. I made no value judgement about that, and never would. I simply thought it was a matter of fact. I don’t know why some people regard the word ‘gay’ as derogatory. I don’t. I was taught in the ALP in the 1980s to look through race, gender and sexuality as minor genetic/preference variations between people.
    On the day before our show, the SMH ran a letter from the nearby Sydney Girls school students, attacking the ‘male video prefects’ as having no right to make a statement about feminism, saying they had a “toxic male culture” at their school.
    On Outsiders we played the video to highlight that “men can’t win” – if you try to help with a well-intentioned (albeit strange and misleading) video, the feminists will bag you anyway.
    Ross Cameron chipped in to say, words to the effect of, “These young fellas ought to be aware that the girls they are trying to impress will run off with a Western Sydney tradie in a ute.”
    Very funny. In the laughter, I quipped, words to the effect of, “Well, I thought the first one was gay, so it won’t affect him”.
    That’s all.
    All I was saying was that the first speaker wouldn’t be impacted by Ross’s observation. There was no condemnation meant, nor should any have been taken. Indeed, that was the initial outcome.
    The show would have had 30-40,000 viewers, including the ABC Media Watch, Buzzfeed, Fairfax etc gang who always watched, hoping to jump onto slip-ups. No one said a word about my comments until 17 days later, when other matters had arisen via ‘lawfare’. I still don’t know the reaction to all this from the first prefect speaker. Publicly, I have said if he’s upset at all by my words or by the controversy itself, then I apologise.
    This is a feature of the Left’s confected outrage/PC industry: no problem at the time, but if they can delve back into history when a political target is vulnerable for other reasons, they will.
    What happened to me was essentially a stitch up. None of the critics gave a crap about the school prefect. They had long been silent. It was all about closing down my (hopefully effective) critique of their ideology.
    The mere mention of the word “gay” today is enough to have companies harassed and people sacked. The Left has turned it into a demon word, when I believe I have never used it that way.
    True, I am a former Labor leader. I’m not a conservative, I’m a social democrat. And from that perspective, I oppose identity politics as a divisive, segregationist doctrine that weakens social trust and cohesiveness – the basic raw materials of community and the good society. You don’t have to be from the Right to oppose identity politics as an abomination. Peter Baldwin (ex senior minister and ALP Socialist left faction) has raised a critique similar to mine. You don’t have to be from the Right to oppose the extreme Left.
    In summary, that’s what happened. If civility-conservatives think that’s fine, they might as well surrender the country and culture wars to the Identity Left right now. We should all go to the pub and have a Coopers instead.
    They (and others) would be saying, in fact, no one can make an evidence-based quip about another person in the context of a very funny joke and very strange video.
    In hindsight, I would have been better off joining the girls’ school in attacking the male prefects as toxic and calling for them to never speak about gender issues again.
    Now ain’t that sad!!

  124. Pingback: Mark Latham responds | Catallaxy Files

  125. Cynic of Ayr

    Well… Latham has written a piece that makes Janet A’s piece look like kindergarten scrawl!
    To be expected, I suppose. Latham isn’t snooty.
    BTW, I’d rather read Steve Kates than Sinclair Davidson. Just my opinion. No offense!

  126. gbees

    My daughter calls me gay frequently. It’s a term of endearment. By the way she is gay and she & her partner live with us. She’s for SSM and we are against it. However we all want a plebiscite because we know that forcing SSM on Australians without a vote will split the country. If it gets up it will be accepted by the majority of Australians. If it doesn’t get up we will still be bullied and harangued by the gay mafia forever.

  127. steve

    Latham and I are from two different sides of the political spectrum, but we have a lot in common in our views. One of the most unexpected for both of us, I would guess, is that the parties that we felt comfortable with ten to fifteen years ago still exist in name but have traveled great ideological distances to become the mainstream parties of today.

    Now ain’t that sad!!

  128. Chris

    BTW, I’d rather read Steve Kates than Sinclair Davidson. Just my opinion. No offense!

    Well, Steve has a lot in common with Mark.
    But it would be great if Sinc wrote more good stuff for everyone.

  129. NewChum

    . If civility-conservatives think that’s fine, they might as well surrender the country and culture wars to the Identity Left right now. We should all go to the pub and have a Coopers instead.

    Well said, and basically what many of us have been trying to aynto the Janet A’s of the fainting couches.

    You got my support when I saw the above linked YouTube video. Still wouldn’t vote for labour, but this is above policies. This is basic society survival.

  130. Stimpson J. Cat

    Stop being gay you lot.

  131. Stimpson J. Cat

    It’s nothing to be happy and carefree about.

  132. stackja

    Mark my words, this is getting interesting.

  133. Rabz

    But it would be great if Sinc wrote more good stuff for everyone.

    Sinc is Sinc and he rightly feels no need to apologise for that. Not that he needs me to defend him.

    This blog is a national treasure and he’s been the reason why, for many moons now.

    We are all privileged to be able to comment here and be heard.

    Above all, this blog is meant to be a clearing house of ideas, not a cesspit of abuse like twatter.

  134. one old bruce

    Well said Rabz!

  135. one old bruce

    The US-focused Wikipedia entries for ‘old Left’ and ‘new Left’ are inaccurate from an Australian perspective.

    Mark Latham is quite right that ‘You don’t have to be on the Right to oppose the extreme Left’. Ben Chifley, just for starters. 25 years ago, leaning so conservative that I believed traditional Islamic societies were fellow travellers, I studied under leftists who were fine scholars and worthy of great respect, they persuaded me away from I guess the far Right. Towards centrist liberalism. But where did they go and what has replaced them? Basically Americanisation I think. LGBT twaddle and multiculti rubbish.

    Good on Mark Latham, however many rough edges he (and we) may have, for trying to maintain the 1980s leftism which flourished in Australia and maybe nowhere else. It was a high point in our history. We don’t need incoherent American ideas to improve when we already had a strong coherent direction, now abandoned for identity politics.

  136. Wiley Coyote

    Mr Sinclair Davidson

    I love your intense admiration of Malcolm Turnbull. Unwavering, no matter what he does.

    I also love your intense hatred of Tony Abbott. He can do no right.

    But would you please not pretend to be neutral. You are clearly of the Left.

  137. Yon Toad

    “Verballing children” Sinc? Latham thought as I did, that the child in question was gay and felt under pressure to have sex with another bloke. It wasn’t until later in the clip that I realised that he was virtue signalling.

Comments are closed.